Knife laws getting more intense in UK? 4143

So, if it were possible to have a totally knifmeless society ( pick a country ). What exactly would that look like? I understand this guy said there was no good reason to carry a knife but I'm taking it a step further.

So, if it were possible to have a totally knifmeless society ( pick a country ). What exactly would that look like? I understand this guy said there was no good reason to carry a knife but I'm taking it a step further.

Well, first of awl, no sandwiches. Or watermelon slices.

Logged

________________________________It is just a matter of time before they add the word “Syndrome” after my last name.

So, if it were possible to have a totally knifmeless society ( pick a country ). What exactly would that look like? I understand this guy said there was no good reason to carry a knife but I'm taking it a step further.

Well, first of awl, no sandwiches. Or watermelon slices.

Kitchens will have axes for cutting food. (Axes are not knives, right?)

So, if it were possible to have a totally knifeless society ( pick a country ). What exactly would that look like? I understand this guy said there was no good reason to carry a knife but I'm taking it a step further.

I'll try not to get too political here.And I'll only reply directly regarding the new rules once.

In Belgium, firearms are prohibited.In the 80's you could own .22 rifles or hunting rifles without any hassle.

Someone got killed by a .22, someone else with a hunting rifle.

Result?Full ban! Only hunters, collectors etc could own these "weapons" under strict rulings and a smurfload of paperwork. Alot of the firearms even needed to be converted to non-functional.

Now, in the current time, people get murdered with knives or even bare fists/hands in those cases where emotions raised high.

And what else do we see?Almost everyone handed in their gun when the law changed, while criminals and robbers fire at the police with AK's!Which were never allowed in the first place! (Duh! This is Europe...)

My point being:Good people will have their TOOL confiscated and be proscecuted, while actual criminals won't give a smurf!The actual scum of people will still carry knives with the intention of using it against people. This was already prohibited (naturaly) and yet they still used it for stabbing.Now with even stricter knife laws they believe that those people will suddenly feel like "oh, carrying a knife is illegal now. I'll only grab my phone and keys when I leave the house now"?

Dream on politicians!

Like mentioned alot of times before: people kill people.

Scentence the ones who did wrong HARD and make an example out of them. As long as criminals feel untouchable, they'll just continue what they're doing.

He is trying to build a high profile political career for himself - outside London he is disliked and not highly respected - don't take what he says too literally.

If you replace "London" with another region or country that statement can be used to describe many current political figures

He was elected in London, so his views represent the majority of London voters. Why would they elect him if they did not agree with him

He was elected with a slim majority. The population of London is less than 8 million. Only just over 4 million people voted for him. That's around 5% of the UK's population which is not a vast amount in terms of democracy.

I find myself in agreement with hiraethus and Mechy that what we need is better policing of existing laws addressing violence. Perhaps combined with better preventative measures to reduce the motivation to engage in criminal behavior.

Not many representatives are elected with 100% of the votes, in democracies

Brexit, Scotish Independence votes had narrow majorities but they are still valid and taken to represent the will of the people.

Maybe most Londoners really do want knives to be made illegal.

Without wishing to go any further into politics, Brexit does not seem to have been accepted as either valid or the will of the people and the fallout has been horrendous.

But I'm sure you see my point, that the London Mayor does not represent all of in the UK by any stretch.

I guess with the current apparent crimewave that many urban folk would be in fear of knife attack. Percentage wise, knife attacks are still rare though in the UK. But obviously no attacks at all would be the optimum outcome.

I find myself in agreement with hiraethus and Mechy that what we need is better policing of existing laws addressing violence. Perhaps combined with better preventative measures to reduce the motivation to engage in criminal behavior.

But that would be hard...

I agree also.

One of the key issues in the UK has been the inability of our Police to penetrate drugs gangs successfully. Some of this is down to age, as it is very difficult to get 30+ year old officers into teen gangs covertly. But also there has been an ethnicity problem in that the UK still does not have enough officers of ethnic minority origin to be able to engage with the modern multi racial society (not through lack of trying, but so often the Police are viewed as the "enemy" rather than arbiters of law and order).

Question, regardless of his fear mongering, can his opinion actually change the law which fully allows the carrying of a non locking blade under 3"? The rhetoric can be as it may, can he change the law?

Question, regardless of his fear mongering, can his opinion actually change the law which fully allows the carrying of a non locking blade under 3"? The rhetoric can be as it may, can he change the law?

Give a lawmaker an inch, he'll take all three.

Not being familiar with English law (except as the basis for USA law), I can't be sure, but suspect he can't change the law with a single stroke of his pen.

However, this is where ridiculous laws start: someone starts framing the problem as a "dangerous weapon" problem, others join in, no one has the courage to stand up for reason, and the group changes the law. So....yes...he can.

Question, regardless of his fear mongering, can his opinion actually change the law which fully allows the carrying of a non locking blade under 3"? The rhetoric can be as it may, can he change the law?

Give a lawmaker an inch, he'll take all three.

Not being familiar with English law (except as the basis for USA law), I can't be sure, but suspect he can't change the law with a single stroke of his pen.

However, this is where ridiculous laws start: someone starts framing the problem as a "dangerous weapon" problem, others join in, no one has the courage to stand up for reason, and the group changes the law. So....yes...he can.

You are correct, Kahn cannot change the law however the government can and they are not going to miss a chance to push their own agenda through. There were already two consultations started, one on firearms and the the other on knives. What has been done now is these have been torn up and new legislation will be passed because 'Think of the children'.

No government is going to be want to be seen doing nothing when 'children' are being killed.

Yes we have existing laws that are fit for purpose but at others have pointed out police budgets have been cut. What no one here has mentioned yet is that the Mayor has instructed the Met Police to concentrate on nasty tweets, fb postings and YT videos. About 900 officers all told that aren't on the streets.

Question, regardless of his fear mongering, can his opinion actually change the law which fully allows the carrying of a non locking blade under 3"? The rhetoric can be as it may, can he change the law?

No he can't - effectively he is head of the London councils and has absolutely no power over UK law, only London's by-laws. Which is why he should be a little less loud about it all. As I said earlier he is trying to make a name for himself.

Question, regardless of his fear mongering, can his opinion actually change the law which fully allows the carrying of a non locking blade under 3"? The rhetoric can be as it may, can he change the law?

No he can't - effectively he is head of the London councils and has absolutely no power over UK law, only London's by-laws. Which is why he should be a little less loud about it all. As I said earlier he is trying to make a name for himself.

His making a name for himself doesn't change the fact that he does have power to change at least the London laws. Here in the USA, Washington DC completely restricted firearms licensing for decades. Finally, a superior court stated that this ban was unconstitutional, and it has recently been lifted. Though all that means is that people can apply and will probably have to jump through tremendous hoops to get a license.

This London mayor can change things there for decades or forever. Which sucks.

People will use bricks or bare hands anyway. And the criminals never really care what the gun or knife laws are anyway.

His making a name for himself doesn't change the fact that he does have power to change at least the London laws. Here in the USA, Washington DC completely restricted firearms licensing for decades. Finally, a superior court stated that this ban was unconstitutional, and it has recently been lifted. Though all that means is that people can apply and will probably have to jump through tremendous hoops to get a license.

This London mayor can change things there for decades or forever. Which sucks.

People will use bricks or bare hands anyway. And the criminals never really care what the gun or knife laws are anyway.

He can ONLY influence London councils and their 'by laws' which are basically things like littering. He has no seat in Parliament therefore cannot introduce or vote on national laws.

He is however a colossal waste of space who has done nothing since becoming mayor other than have a go a Trump

Question, regardless of his fear mongering, can his opinion actually change the law which fully allows the carrying of a non locking blade under 3"? The rhetoric can be as it may, can he change the law?

No he can't - effectively he is head of the London councils and has absolutely no power over UK law, only London's by-laws. Which is why he should be a little less loud about it all. As I said earlier he is trying to make a name for himself.

His making a name for himself doesn't change the fact that he does have power to change at least the London laws. Here in the USA, Washington DC completely restricted firearms licensing for decades. Finally, a superior court stated that this ban was unconstitutional, and it has recently been lifted. Though all that means is that people can apply and will probably have to jump through tremendous hoops to get a license.

This London mayor can change things there for decades or forever. Which sucks.

People will use bricks or bare hands anyway. And the criminals never really care what the gun or knife laws are anyway.

Knife law can only be changed by Parliament ie the UK government, not by a mayor. The mayoral role in the UK is very different to that in the US.

People will use bricks or bare hands anyway. And the criminals never really care what the gun or knife laws are anyway.

How many of these criminals aren't initially criminals but in fact teenagers who get caught up in heated situations? They carry a knife because other kids do, then when things turn sour they use their knife. It gives them power they would not otherwise have. A knife is scarier than bricks or bare hands, and most people could not do the same amount of damage as easily with either. And it gives them a confidence that stops them from backing away from a dangerous situation.